Anaruddha v. State of U.P.)
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46645 of 2021 Applicant :- Avdhesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Tripathi Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Avdhesh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 114 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 336, 504 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Matsena, District Firozabad. The prosecution case as per the First Information Report lodged on 16.5.2021 by Sarvesh Yadav naming the applicant and the other accused persons is that on 16.5.2021 at about 6:00 pm Brij Mohan and Bhura the cousin brothers of the first informant had gone to give money to Gopal and near the house of Gopal, the accused persons 11 in number including the applicant abused them and stared pelting stones on them. His brother Uma Shankar and mother Smt. Sushila Devi and other persons of the family intervened to save them after which the accused persons with a country made pistol fired due to which Smt. Sushila Devi, Uma Shanker and Balram received injuries. The information about the incident was given to the police who reached there and took the injured to the hospital wherein Smt. Sushial Devi died and the other two injured are being treated in the hospital. (i) Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecution story is false and incorrect. It is argued that 11 accused persons including the applicant have been named in which common and general role have been assigned to them. The deceased Smt. Sushila Devi has received a single gun shot which has one exit wound. It is further argued that Balram the alleged injured was medically examined who has received a single red abrasion on his left shoulder which was opined by the doctor is simple in nature. (ii) Co-accused Ram Parvesh @ Anaruddha, Vikesh, Sipahiram and Beetu @ Vijay have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 04.12.2021, 26.11.2021, 25.11.2021 and 27.11.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 42666 of 2021 (Ram Pravesh @ Anaruddha Vs. State of U.P.), 36458 of 2021 (Vikesh Vs. State of U.P.), 42491 of 2021 (Sipahiram Vs. State of U.P.) and 44173 of 2021 (Beetu @ Vijay Vs. State of U.P.). Copy of the orders are annexed as annexure S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 13.01.2022. (iii) The applicant has a criminal history of one case in which the applicant has been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 13.01.2021 as stated in para 48 of the affidavit. (iv) Apart from the said case, the applicant has no other criminal history as stated in para 49 of the affidavit and is in jail since 18.06.2021. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and there are allegations against him but could not dispute the fact that the said co-accused persons have been granted bail. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the common and general role assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons in the First Information Report. The deceased has received single gun shot injury. It is not known who is the author of the said injury. The present case has a cross version in which one person from the side of the applicant has received gun shot injury. Co- accused persons namely Ram Parvesh @ Anaruddha, Vikesh, Sipahiram and Beetu @ Vijay have been granted bail. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Let the applicant Avdhesh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 5.3.2022 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.03.05 14:52:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad